http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-gilmour/jehovahs-witnesses-and-ac_b_987545.html
Excerpt (bold added):
Intrigued by this gap in the scholarly conversation about contemporary uses of the Bible, I recently proposed an SBL session examining the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's use of Scripture. I received approval to proceed but then dropped the ball before getting too far along and circulating a call for papers. Here's why. Though there are good reasons for scholars to engage this Bible reading community in a context like SBL, I wonder whether it is a responsible or even ethical thing to do if members of the organization are not part of the conversation. Said differently, is it appropriate for outsiders to put a religious tradition under the microscope without insider representation?
The difference between the Jehovah's Witnesses and other contemporary reading communities examined at SBL is participation. Sessions treating other religious perspectives on biblical literature - such as the Latter-day Saints and the Bible section - enjoy active participation by adherents. To illustrate, scholars from Brigham Young University are active in this group. It seems unlikely this would occur in prospective sessions on the Jehovah's Witnesses. Indeed, the Watchtower views biblical scholarship with profound distrust so the very idea of a conversation about their hermeneutics at SBL is problematic. Their 1988 commentary Revelation: Its Grand Climax at Hand!, for instance, repeats suspicions about the integrity or acumen of biblical scholarship, referring with disdain to "Worldly commentators" who offer alternative readings of Revelation (120 and passim). And there's the rub. Can we have a substantial, respectful, constructive conversation about this group - or any other religious community - if there are no insiders, no representatives of the tradition involved?